Sh. Vimal Ghai v. Sh. M. P. Sharma, 2026
The Court reaffirmed that Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised to advance justice, not to reopen concluded stages of trial.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
7 January 2026
Judges
Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- The respondent filed a cheque bounce complaint against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
-
The complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel during trial.
-
After completion of cross-examination and when the case reached the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner:
-
Engaged a new counsel, and
-
Filed an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of the complainant for further cross-examination.
-
-
The ground taken was that:
-
The previous counsel failed to ask material questions relating to liability and alleged repayment.
-
-
The Trial Court rejected the application.
-
The Revisional Court also dismissed the challenge.
-
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues
-
Whether a complainant can be recalled for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC merely because the accused has engaged a new counsel?
-
Whether alleged inadequacy of cross-examination by previous counsel is a valid ground for recalling a witness?
-
Whether repeated recall of witnesses on change of counsel would adversely affect the administration of criminal trials?
Held
-
Change of counsel is not a valid ground to recall a complainant for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC.
-
Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to fill lacunae arising from an alleged defective cross-examination.
-
Courts must prevent misuse of recall powers to delay proceedings, especially in cheque bounce cases.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed that Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised to advance justice, not to reopen concluded stages of trial.
-
It balanced:
-
The accused’s right to fair trial, and
-
The need for speedy disposal, particularly in NI Act cases.
-
-
The ruling discourages strategic delays caused by changing lawyers.
-
It reinforces judicial consistency that procedural lapses by counsel cannot indefinitely prolong trials.
-
The judgment strengthens trial discipline and protects complainants from repeated harassment.